+1
There is no reason to have *NEW* development of Maven be hampered by
obsolete technology. If anyone can't upgrade their Java runtime for
whatever reason, they probably won't upgrade to a new Maven version as
well. 3.0.4 works rather well and anyone should really be tying down
their plugin versi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Jesse Glick wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 05:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> What are the big features and possibilities we gain from 1.6?
>>
>
> The largest in this context would probably be:
>
> - annotation processors
>
I'm really vague on this, but wasn't there som
On Feb 7, 2013, at 19:28, Jesse Glick wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 05:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> What are the big features and possibilities we gain from 1.6?
>
> The largest in this context would probably be:
>
> - annotation processors
> - script engine
> - split bytecode verifier (thus quicker s
On 02/06/2013 05:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
What are the big features and possibilities we gain from 1.6?
The largest in this context would probably be:
- annotation processors
- script engine
- split bytecode verifier (thus quicker startup)
Java 7 is a bigger bump (NIO.2, try-with-resources
Hi Nigel.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
> > currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
> > nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
> b
+1000
Regards,
Hervé
Le jeudi 7 février 2013 11:46:52 Stephen Connolly a écrit :
[...]
> I am against moving up "just because". However I am all in favour of moving
> up "because XYZ".
>
> For me invalid reasons to move to as a runtime requirement 1.6 are things
> like:
>
> * I cannot get a 1.
Hi Stephen,
No, Java 1.6 is not available for AIX 5.3. It's support started as of 6.1.
Nicely worded on the good reasons.
The project that I'm working on now is upgrading everying, but even then,
we're only targeting 1.6, as that is what WAS/WPS/APS V8 all run on.
-Chris
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 a
Hello,
I agree with Nigel here, those who need to use an outdated version of the
JDK now have to use an outdated version of Maven as well. Testing stuff
with different JDK versions is work as well.
Stephen, I for one would love at least 1.6 for one single reason: having
@Override at interfaces :-
So... Make it Java 7!
Gary
On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:12, Kristian Rosenvold
wrote:
> I must say i am rather luke-warm about *ever* making 1.6 minimum. The few
> interesting things (functionally) that happened in 1.6 are well covered
> with reflection, and I'd be tempted to just wait until we can do
I must say i am rather luke-warm about *ever* making 1.6 minimum. The few
interesting things (functionally) that happened in 1.6 are well covered
with reflection, and I'd be tempted to just wait until we can do 1.7 base ;)
As for being able to support multiple versions, I generally make different
>
>
> I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
> currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
> nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just been
> extended* by a year!
>
>
You know that Jenkins is looking like going Ja
+1 on Stephen's reasons
Jeff
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 February 2013 08:58, Chris Graham wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On 07/02/2013, at 6:59 PM, Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
> >
> > > Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54
On 7 February 2013 08:58, Chris Graham wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 07/02/2013, at 6:59 PM, Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
>
> > Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, "Chris Graham" a écrit :
> >>
> >> Hey All.
> >>
> >> Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
> >>
> >> Whilst
On Feb 7, 2013, at 3:00, Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
> Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, "Chris Graham" a écrit :
>>
>> Hey All.
>>
>> Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
>>
>> Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something shiny
>> and new,
>
> Please. Can
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Struberg"
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:23:39 AM
> Subject: Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
>
>
>
> What are the big features and possibilities we gain from 1.6?
That&#
Sent from my iPhone
On 07/02/2013, at 6:59 PM, Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
> Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, "Chris Graham" a écrit :
>>
>> Hey All.
>>
>> Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
>>
>> Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something shiny
2013/2/7 Stephen Connolly :
> On Thursday, 7 February 2013, Nicolas Delsaux wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Olivier Lamy >
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that (again).
>> >
>> > Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 20
On Thursday, 7 February 2013, Nicolas Delsaux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Olivier Lamy >
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that (again).
> >
> > Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013.
> >
> > Can we say we are safe to
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Hi,
> As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that (again).
>
> Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013.
>
> Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ?
>
Don't fully understand the question.
Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, "Chris Graham" a écrit :
>
> Hey All.
>
> Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
>
> Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something shiny
> and new,
Please. Can we stop using that kind of father-ish formulation? That's not
Hey All.
Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something shiny
and new, I do find that the current 1.5 based Maven is more than sufficient
for our needs.
I lot of responses about the upgrade are normally ar
Totally agree... if people really need to build for older Java runtimes
they still can.. but if Oracle thinks they dont want to support JDK < 1.7
without getting paid why would the Maven project do it ;-)
For now 1.6 seems just fine and I would even say a jump to 1.7 in the next
year or three (;-
b
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> From: Baptiste MATHUS
> >>To: Maven Developers List
> >>Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:31 PM
> >>Subject: Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
> >>
> >>+1, bump to JDK
not that far ago ;)
:-)
That's a periodic discussion we have so I try again.
The main features I'd like to use are more in 1.7.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>>
>> From: Baptiste MATHUS
>>To: Maven Developers List
&
ng IT, etc)?
As comparison: we still supported 1.4 and older until not that far ago ;)
LieGrue,
strub
>
> From: Baptiste MATHUS
>To: Maven Developers List
>Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:31 PM
>Subject: Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
>
>+1
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
> +1, bump to JDK6 minimum for Maven.
>
>
> 2013/2/6 Stephen Connolly
>
> > I think we should at least have a minor version bump on core to
> > co-incide... Though I think calling it maven 4.0 might be better (that
> way
>
+1, bump to JDK6 minimum for Maven.
2013/2/6 Stephen Connolly
> I think we should at least have a minor version bump on core to
> co-incide... Though I think calling it maven 4.0 might be better (that way
> we catch up with the model version ;-)
>
> On Wednesday, 6 February 2013, Olivier Lamy w
I think we should at least have a minor version bump on core to
co-incide... Though I think calling it maven 4.0 might be better (that way
we catch up with the model version ;-)
On Wednesday, 6 February 2013, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Hi,
> As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about tha
Hi,
As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that (again).
Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013.
Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ?
NOTE: That will probably need a vote. So depending on how the thread
move, I will start a vote (or n
29 matches
Mail list logo
